[whisket]

I don't feel like you understand the point I'm trying to make when I suggest a world filled with exact copies of yourself. I do this only to suggest that even in this ideal, like-minded case, conflict will arise, i.e. two yous will not be able to come to a consensus on who is morally at fault given a circumstance.

Consider merging onto a highway. At some point you merge ahead of a car, and at some point you merge behind a car. There is some epsilon around around this point where you lack the perfect behaviour to make the objectively correct decision due to limited human processing capacity. Suppose an accident occurs, then subjectively both yous feel you did the moral thing. Is someone at fault, yes, the person who was within epsilon wrong. Pragmatically you may say no one was at fault, accidents happen. At which point the question becomes how big is an acceptable epsilon. And so on and so on, more questions upon questions. Which need to have answers, which provoke disagreement. Which is why I say you are right in a vacuum, but we don't exist in a vacuum.

A criticism of my argument would be that reality does not work that way and that everything is deterministic, and then we're back to desiring a machine that we can build that will say yes and no and right and wrong. If that machine can exist, we don't have it yet, and if we did I promise at least one person will say it's broken.

If you must, find one thing that is broken in your life, and try and devote your energies to fixing it for the next generation. If the ideas you are promoting are that, so be it. But this road is very long and very difficult and the majority are like me, too lazy, and mostly just coping. A quicker buck is made selling snake oil and using that wealth to buy leisure and hire lawyers. Morals be damned.

[verisimi]

> Consider merging onto a highway. At some point you merge ahead of a car, and at some point you merge behind a car. There is some epsilon around around this point where you lack the perfect behaviour to make the objectively correct decision due to limited human processing capacity. Suppose an accident occurs, then subjectively both yous feel you did the moral thing. Is someone at fault, yes, the person who was within epsilon wrong. Pragmatically you may say no one was at fault, accidents happen. At which point the question becomes how big is an acceptable epsilon. And so on and so on, more questions upon questions. Which need to have answers, which provoke disagreement. Which is why I say you are right in a vacuum, but we don't exist in a vacuum.

I understand your example - I don't know that I have a clear answer - at any rate let us accept that there is an ambiguity there. How does the current system help resolve this?

Perhaps you will say there are laws, judges, etc that will do it. In which case, it would be surely be possible to find a solution without that system, by simply finding someone acceptable to both parties to arbitrate, no?

I certainly don't think like is deterministic - not sure why you're bring that into it.

One can certainly choose a hedonic lifestyle ("morals be damned"). Or one can choose to uncover and learn about oneself more deeply. Or something else. For me, there's only one path that has value of meaning personally. But, even the hedonist that can apply reason, ought to be able to agree that initiating harm is a wrong, not a right.